BS: scottish independence

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 12:08 PM

Wonder what the Catalan will do...

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 11:56 AM

Look up the thread. One is voting because he thinks SNP really mean the exact opposite of everything they stand for!

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 11:29 AM

Ed T said I suspect many, but likely not all, Scottish citizens have asked themselves many important questions before deciding on which "side of the divide" their future rests

Indeed so, and I am glad of it. But in a way that's my point. After all that thinking it looks possible we may end up with a difference in numbers so small that the balance of power is effectively held by those who for example, are voting as they do because that's what some celeb says, or similar irrelevancy.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 10:42 AM

I'm in Southwold at present. Adnams brewery around the corner have recently released their single malt. Rather good. Got a few bottles to take back. You don't need to be in Och Aye the Noo Land to get a decent dram of single malt eh ?

Just think. If McSweens buy some grazing land for their haggis herds in Cumbria, Irn Bru will be the major export commodity for Scotland.

Hey worm! Let's see now.. BBC are lying, the latest opinion polls are lies yet Salmond is telling the truth! Despite you saying he lies for a good cause.

Look at it this way. Whatever the outcome, nobody is building a Scotland to fit your dreams. That is the most positive bit about the referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Scabby Douglas
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:26 AM

The "Guest" above was a cookieless me

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:25 AM

Rahere: "And then there's the roughly 20 000 soldiery being reduced to around 3000, with just Shannon the Cannon having any functional use at all. 6 fighters, perhaps (anyone ask the MOD?).
Aye, a well-run country."

Rahere, Don't know where you got those numbers from - it's already been discussed *in this thread* that the planned numbers (15,000) for an iScotland National Defence force would be more than the number of MoD personnel that's presently stationed/based in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 09:10 AM

DMcG

I recall a humourous quote by a now deceased friend and co-worker:

" If someone asks me to jump off a cliff, my first question would likely be-is the tide in or out" (Romeo LeBlanc).

I suspect many, but likely not all, Scottish citizens have asked themselves many important questions before deciding on which "side of the divide" their future rests.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 08:06 AM

An an Englishman, I am really glad I don't have to make this decision: it is a really complex trade off of short term and long term effects, attitudes, relationships, principles like what exactly do you mean by democracy ... the list goes on and as I say it is a relief I am not being called on to make it.

What does bother me, though is the closeness of the votes. The number of people who have thought long and hard and come to the decision to vote no appears to be almost exactly the same as the number who have thought equally long and hard and come to the opposite conclusion. Which means it will actually be decided by people who are voting on no rational basis whatever. One person I heard interviewed last night said part of her decision was based on the news of a new royal pregnancy which was 'nice'. The idea that such a momentous decision will end up in the hands of such frippery is pretty scary.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 06:49 AM

Oops, sent last post before completing. Here is the brief information on that link:

Paul Krugman (his bio in the link below) gave his perspective in a NY Times Op Ed on the risks of a potentially independent Scotland keeping the Pound.

Paul Krugman 

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 06:39 AM

In the link below, Paul Krugman, New York Times Columist and


Scots, What The Heck? - NYTimes. 

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 06:28 AM

The latest poll is NOT a surge for the no vote, it was commissioned by a virulently anti-independence newspaper and contains exactly the same result as the last poll they published.

The momentum is firmly in the YES camp, especially amongst young people and females.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 06:18 AM

The bank scare stories have been exposed on BBC radio this morning as lies and disinformation.

Mr Salmond quoted from a letter which he had just received from RBS, which stated any movement would be purely for legal reasons there would be no upheavals, no movement of staff or services to bank customers and no job losses.
The Offices of Lloyds are already in London and any movements are also for legal reasons if Independence is achieved.

Desperate tactics from a scared and stupid "Team Westminster"

At 5 o'clock this morning BBC were saying that RBS and Lloyds were moving their whole operation to England........Don't believe the lying bastards, the whole media including the BBC have been mustered to stop Scotland achieving self determination.    Vote AYE.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 06:01 AM

That land on the Northumbrian coast BP bought last year. We'll soon see whether it will go back on the market or lots of new jobs for Geordies. Also, BP have been relocating many of their executive staff to London (Sudbury I think but could be slightly wrong there. That might be where our friends are going to be living..)

Latest poll is a surge for the no vote. It would make gripping stuff to keep interest going if it weren't so fundamentally important either way.

I had a thank you email from The Scotsman by the way regarding an SNP member on these threads saying Salmond told him he doesn't actually agree with gay marriage and he is manipulating the media with views he doesn't actually hold. It might make a story yet.

SNP just sent an automated reply.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 04:40 AM

Weerover. I ask this in all seriousness.

What do you consider to be the "knowns" you base your decision on?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 14 - 01:47 AM

In the event of a YES vote Guest Rahere the flight of capital and jobs will be massive. The post-Referendum negotiating position that Alex Salmond has talked himself into believing that he has will prove to be a house of cards. He can shout, bluster, threaten and demand all he wants, but if it is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom it won't happen.

RBS was a "no-brainer" as it is 83% owned by the Treasury, the others by EU law have to be based where their main client base is (Standard Life 90% of their business is in England). The businesses that wanted to warn of the consequences of a YES vote who the YeSNP silenced by intimidation will vote with their feet and relocate - Good news for the North of England, as that is logically where many could relocate to rapidly and cheaply.

No RBS and no Bank of Scotland, which only leaves Australian owned Clydesdale, wonder what they will do? Wonder where the Weirs have their millions parked?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:50 PM

Well, in substantiation of my thinking that Scotland may be reduced to barter, we now know that both BOS/Lloyds and RBOS/Natwest will be voting with their feet and fleeing the country, alongside other finance institutions, in the case of a No. In which case, is there a bank left in Scotland to handle the Nation's financing?
And then there's the roughly 20 000 soldiery being reduced to around 3000, with just Shannon the Cannon having any functional use at all. 6 fighters, perhaps (anyone ask the MOD?).
Aye, a well-run country.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,weerover
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:09 PM

The main plank of the No campaign appears to be that there are too many "unknowns" about a post-Yes vote and to a certain extent it's difficult to disagree. However, when you look at the "knowns" I think it's a no-brainer - a resounding "Yes" from me.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:30 PM

Be careful Bill. Imagine finding you were related to....

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:24 PM

(I am not uninterested, Ake.. just not knowledgeable enough to comment on the details. I'd love to visit some day and trace some of my roots. )

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:18 PM

If there is a No vote I hope this 'rumbling of the ground' created by the referendum will energise the rest of the UK to do something about the type of people that run all major parties in Westminster.
Russell Brand was right when he said we should rip it up and start again.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 01:50 PM

Black is the new white

Holyrood would become the new Westminster.

Give it ten years and Aberdeenshire will want independence from those bastards in Edinburgh etc etc...

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Dazbo at home
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 01:45 PM

Supposing the Nos win by a vote the Yes campaign will push for a referendum in a few years. So if the yes win by a few votes will they let the no campaign another vote? I doubt it. This would seem to be a very one sided democratic process.

Independence for Shetland I say

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 01:43 PM

If you lived here you would be interested Bill.
I've never seen the Scots so animated over a vote, everyone is talking about it or involved in canvassing....I am truly amazed, they are expecting a turnout of over 80% which is virtually unheard of.

Must be a good thing no matter who wins, people are getting interested asking questions.....realising that they CAN make a difference, discovering people power works even against the "Westminster elite"

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 01:27 PM

It's fascinating to see a topic where, although I have many Scottish ancestors, I have absolutely no opinion about the outcome.

I still wish everyone well and hope that nothing horrible happens, either way.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 01:24 PM

Been working all day and just caught a bit of Cameron on BBC news.
You couldn't make it up! All we needed was for "Flashman" to burst into tears :0)

About how he loves the Scots more than his Party....Snap David! we love our country more than your Party as well!!

He loves us so much that he's going to make our lives a misery if we don't do what he wants!.....Aye Right David, away an fuck yersell!

The gall of him, the guy who refused to allow Devo-Max on the ballot paper when he thought the NO crowd were gaunae pish it.

Now he offers it up as a bribe after the postal votes are in, because he thinks he's gaunae get shafted.

Ye jist couldnae make it up...it's a pantomime...or a tragedy for "team Westminster"

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 10:29 AM

"In the short term I suspect Scotland will prosper while a Scottish government spends money it hasn't got to make everyone feel good. In the long term I am less sure - most economic commentators, including those without an axe to grind, are warning of problems ahead."

Nice to see someone else paying attention.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 10:25 AM

"could you describe the positive benefits to continuing in the Union? How are we better together? What's so great about Great Britain?"

You mean compared to the SNP's vision of cloud-cuckooland?

Currency for one thing - everyone in Scotland today has got what Jowly says he wants a mandate to go and negotiate for because having Sterling within a currency union is in Scotland's best interest.

Economically we (The Scots) are better together as part of the UK as a trading block.

Within the Union we can if we chose to do so can afford to defend ourselves - Independent Scotland will have no Scottish Defence Force we simply will not be able to afford one.

What is so great about Great Britain - simple it's Great.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 10:16 AM

British Citizens will remain British Citizens, as will their children, their grandchildren however will not be.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Howard Jones
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 08:59 AM

If the Scots choose to separate that is obviously their decision. I am saddened that my country may be torn apart, and angry that Cameron got the tactics of the referendum so wrong. The United Kingdom was once a world leader, and still a significant power in the world. A smaller UK will be diminished, and a separate Scotland will I'm afraid be fairly insignificant in global terms.

I think Scotland is on the brink of a great leap into the unknown. Brave or foolhardy? I am not sure what real benefits it expects from independence - it already has devolved powers over many of the things that matter, and can expect more. No country in the modern world is truly independent, but what voice can independent Scotland expect to have in the wider world? Look at similar size countries - Norway, Singapore, Turkmenistan - and consider how much attention anyone gives them. In terms of GDP Scotland will be below the likes of Nigeria, South Africa, Iran, Thailand and the Philippines. Most countries are seeking to combine together rather than separate, but even if Scotland is able to join the EU it will be one small country among many rather than a major player, which it is as part of the UK.

In the short term I suspect Scotland will prosper while a Scottish government spends money it hasn't got to make everyone feel good. In the long term I am less sure - most economic commentators, including those without an axe to grind, are warning of problems ahead.

One question I haven't seen answered is what about those people living in Scotland who don't want to give up their British citizenship? This could be a quite a large number given the percentage of "No"s.

There seems to be a lot of risk for very little benefit.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 08:00 AM

Teribus is a lost cause I'm afraid, I've invited him to the party if we win.......but he refused, he's waiting in hope for the "catastrophe"

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 07:59 AM

""I...Scotland is a net drain upon the UK, then removing that sinkhole should improve the financial outlook for the remaining United Kingdom (rUK)."

While this seems to make sense on first look, there are factors to consider that makes it less so, especially over the short term-such as:

Firstly, outside forces, like bond companies, lenders, trading partners and other outside financial players prefer stability to unpredictability and sudden change. Over the short term, I suspect the financial outlook would reflect the uncertainities of the impacts of separation.This could be the biggest related impact, likely bigger than the current fall of the currancy. However, over the longer term, this uncertanity would be likely be reduced, through increased stability, as would the financial impact.

Secondly, like with a divorce, the initial costs of two parties "going out on their own" can be greater than the costs to a single pairing. Each government would likely see new costs (such as consultants,and reorganization) to adjust, as governments tend to do. It is likely that these costs would reduce over the longer term.Sometimes there are efficiencies over delivering services to a greater number, sometimes there are efficiencies related to being smaller.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 07:57 AM

Thanks Doug, I too believe removing the huge gap between the obscenely rich and the obscenely poor.
We can never have "equality" under our present economic syteem, but I want a government that will at least try to level up the playing field, get rid of WMDs and start giving our hopeless young people a life.
There are a few things I would like to see put into practice in time, like removing ourselves from NATO and the EU, but these are also personal views......after Independence I will probably return, to hopefully, a Scottish Socialist Party.

Providing it retains a sense of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Scabby Douglas
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 07:56 AM

You know, Teribus, for someone who does not know, any more than anyone else does, what's actually going to happen, you have an unremittingly negative view on so many possible outcomes. You seem so angry all the time. I worry about you. Not a lot. But a bit.

Just for a moment, instead of predicting that the sky will fall in, and nine headed beasts devouring the first and second born across all the land after independence, could you describe the positive benefits to continuing in the Union? How are we better together? What's so great about Great Britain?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 07:30 AM

1: "If, as is relentlessly asserted by commentators opposed to independence, Scotland is a net drain upon the UK, then removing that sinkhole should improve the financial outlook for the remaining United Kingdom (rUK)."

Classic example of SNP Spin there Scabby. So far I have not heard one single proponent of the Better Together side state that. What they have said and stated quite correctly is that the SNP's sums just simply do not add up - But no matter Scabby once we've all voted YES and are independent then we will get to pick up the tab for an independent Scotland and that is when we will all find out that we cannot pay for it unless services, including the NHS, and benefits will have to be cut, and that taxes will have to be raised right across the board (Remembering that the rich can always afford to move and that those left will have to pick up the slack).

2: "If the rUK is obliged by the newly-formed Scottish government to proceed with plans to remove nuclear weapons from the base(s) in Scotland, then there are concerns over the rUK's ability to find suitable alternative locations elsewhere, with the possibility that rUK may have to give up its nuclear capability. (I say "if" because many opponents of independence are convinced that Alex Salmond is bluffing in his assertion that nuclear missiles must go, and think he's using it only as a negotiating counter.)

Well Scabby as the removal of Trident from Scotland is only an SNP condition (There never has been a referendum on that issue in Scotland) we will have to wait and see what the first elected Scottish Government will do. All comes down to this tiny point about Scotland shouldering it's share of the National Debt. Apparently Jowly has said Scotland will not honour this obligation so there will be no shared assets. Property owned in Scotland, even the newly independent Scotland, will remain the property of the Government of the United Kingdom. Having reneged on their share of the UK's National Debt that will send a very bad signal to international lenders and will cost the new Scottish Government dearly - How many millions did Swinney predict that the newly independent Scottish Government would have to borrow each year for the first five years of independence?

So Faslane, Coulport, Dreghorn Barracks, Lossiemouth, Leuchars, etc, etc, all existing MoD property will remain MoD property and all the buildings currently owned by other UK Government Departments will still be owned by the UK Government unless of course the newly independent Scottish Government just seizes them. That too would send a very bad signal to any foreign investor wishing to invest in Scotland.

Relocation of Trident South Scabby? That does not pose any intractable problem, I dare say that prospective sites would welcome the employment it would create, just as parts of a newly independent Scotland would mourn the loss of it. The UK will retain it's nuclear deterrent irrespective of the result of the referendum.

3: On market confidence in the UK's borrowing I think they base that on GDP and ratio of GDP:Debt. Now just to put things into perspective Scotland including it's oil accounts for slightly less than 10% of the UK's GDP while the City of London alone contributes 22%, while the UK might momentarily have to sustain that 10% loss the 58.3 million people and their economy will soon recover, while Scotland could be faced with losing 80% of its trade should the UK decide to look elsewhere, now that would pose some fairly steep challenges particularly for a Government that has no control whatsoever of the exchange, and interest rates of the currency it has unilaterally decided to use without benefit of political or financial union, or guaranteed "lender of last resort".

4: On psychological and political fallout it would not only be in the UK that that would have to be assessed. But at least between the Referendum next week and Scotland's date for Independence (24th March 2016) there will be a General Election in which the separation negotiations will feature large. This General Election will take place in May 2015 and if Labour win there will then be another General election on or shortly after the 24th March 2016 when all the Scottish Westminster MPs disappear and Labour lose their majority in the House of Commons. No Party in the 2015 election will dare to be seen as being overly generous to the newly independent Scots, as that would be political suicide. I think that with the flight of capital, the abandonment of Scotland's financial and banking sectors and the loss of jobs that the Northern part of the UK might well benefit greatly.

But one thing on which you are very much in error on is your statement:

" Maybe it will make no difference at all."

Irrespective of the result of the Referendum on the 18th September this year things will never be the same in the British Isles ever again. As for your:

"I could not begin to predict it."

Then maybe, just maybe, every single person intending to vote YES should have given that a bit of thought - you should never tear anything down before you know for certain that what you will put back in its place is something that will stand and something that will be better - the SNP has signally failed to do that with shouts of "scaremonger", but have no fear Scabby all those "scare stories" and predictions will come home to roost, each and every one of them with huge costs, costs that will have to be borne by 5.3 million Scots and them alone. They say that the result of the Referendum will be close and that would be the worst possible outcome even for a YES result as South of your border there will be a United Kingdom while North of their border in Scotland will be a land bitterly divided facing decades of forced austerity simply because your "leaders" preferred to lie to the electorate of Scotland and to the Scottish people, instead of being open and honest and doing their homework and getting their sums right.

By the way when do you think the Shetlanders will demand their referendum? What will Jowly's excuses be for denying them it? My guess will be it will be before 24th March 2016.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 07:11 AM

If Scotland departs, remove the blue and the offcentre white X. Replace them with the Welsh White and Green, and perhaps the Cornish/Manx Black.

BTW, Cameron, the rest of the UK will NOT be desperately sad if Scotland departs. I'll be cheering at the loss of a hhuge economic drag. It comes to something when you have to go to that utter waster Brown to make your case, and says a lot about the utter incompetence of the political system.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Scabby Douglas
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 07:04 AM

And to Akenaton, I just wanted to say that our last two posts overlapped in posting.

Regards

Steven

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Scabby Douglas
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 06:56 AM

Akenaton, I don't think there's any need to turn this thread into a rammy between two Yes voters, but I have to disagree with your last statement. Same-sex marriage is an important principle of equality, and a significant step. I'm proud that it was enacted in Scotland under an SNP administration. If you're labouring under the misapprehension that it might be rescinded or abolished in iScotland, you're going to be disappointed, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 06:51 AM

Doug, I think we have the same vision for Scotland, my opposition to the Homosexual "marriage" legislation, is purely personal and of no importance in the fight for independence.
I have never discussed this legislation with Mr Salmond, but I do know what is IMPORTANT to him.


Ian(Musket) is a stalker, many of who's posts have been deleted by admin.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 06:39 AM

Hee Hee !! Ian, how simple can you get, don't you realise that ALL politicians try to manipulate the media?
Most end up being manipulated, but not oor Alex.

Also I don't believe anybody but idiot activists like yourself care a toss about homosexual "marriage"....it is simply a handy tool to be used for or against......"get used to it!!"

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Scabby Douglas
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 06:34 AM

I dont't know (and am not much interested in) what Akenaton's views are on this matter, no offence, Ake, just that I'm not voting for Akenaton on Thursday. I haven't met Alex Salmond, but I do believe that Alex Salmond is capable of espousing causes or policies that he doesn't personally care that much about if it should be expedient, which is another way of saying: he's a politician.

For what it's worth - not worth much, as it's purely my opinion - the SNP administration went to a lot of effort to demonstrate their support of, for example, same-sex marriage. They won't now rescind or dilute that, even if some individuals were opposed to the policy. It's in law. And so much of the discussion and rhetoric in this campaign has been about a "fairer" Scotland, there's a massive groundswell of support based on that aspiration. How much of that will come to fruition, I don't know. I do know that any measures which were seen to diminish that or to backslide from even the current position would be met with hostility and anger.

And as for "second-class" citizens, the Yes campaign is demonstrably supported at agenuine grass-roots level across all cultural and ethnic groupings. There's a commitment to accepting and welcoming immigration - and that would be impossible to square with the kind of volte-face that is being suggested here.

Independence would not grant the SNP government free rein to do whatever they like immediately afterward - There's a Scottish election planned for 2016. So I expect some commitments to be able to be delivered soon after independence, some to take years to be delivered, some maybe decades, and some will fall by the wayside as circumstances change. That's how life is. But it would be for the electorate in Scotland to choose the government that best reflects the direction we want to take.

Independence is not the end of the journey. It's not a destination - in fact it's just the first step on the journey.

As I said, I'm not voting for Akenaton's vision of Scotland, or even for Alex Salmond's. I'm voting for the chance to change how things are done.

I don't mean any disrespect to Akenaton, everyone is entitled to their views, no matter what I or anyone else may think of them. But if I thought there was a hint, a whiff, of wild promises being casually made now that would be swept away or reneged on later, I would not be voting "Yes".

And to some extent, the arrogance of the Better Together campaign supported by a biased media, lazy and complacent journalism has fed into this decision as well.   The Scottish members of the anti-independence campaign should know this, it's not a new characteristic of Scots. We don't like being lectured to, dislike being told what to do, hate being told what's good for us. We resent it to the point of going out and doing the opposite. It's not a pretty trait, I'll grant you. The Scots word is "thrawn".

So, 8 days to go. We'll see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:57 AM

Hey Scabby Douglas! A member of The SNP, Akenaton, has just said Alex Salmond lies about his intentions in order to manipulate the media. He says that once Scotland is independent, it will be very different to the promises Salmond is making now. He also says this to be true because he has met him.

It kind of makes everything you say to be bollocks.

Unless you think Salmond does actually believe what he says? Is Akenaton describing the Scotland you want? Is Salmond drawing up a list of proposed second class citizens?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:54 AM

"It appears that the electorate in Scotland is far more progressive than in England"

I would be very interested in hearing what your basis for that is Joe, as the political "map" of an independent Scotland is as predictable as the current political "map" for California, and I would venture for precisely the same reason - centres of population.

If out of the six proposed there are only two that would be "Democrat" and therefore four that would be "Republican", yet California as currently configured normally votes and returns a Democrat (2012 Election of the 18,245,970 registered voters in California 43.7% were Democrat; 29.4% Republican; 6% Other parties & 20.9% unaffiliated) then the Democrats must live in two fairly substantial solid clumps.

70% of the Scottish Electorate are concentrated in the Dundee-Edinburgh-Glasgow Belt and are solidly socialist -and post-YES vote Referendum that will dictate and colour the politics of Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:39 AM

Are you sure about that Joe?

A member of the Scottish National Party has said on this very thread that Salmond lies in order to manipulate the media and he doesn't give a damn about those for whom he says he cares for.

If this were true, which of course it isn't, I doubt anyone could call Scotland progressive.

Still, I have just emailed The SNP communications people with a link to this thread and Akenaton's real name and location, asking if SNP agrees with comments by its members? If I don't get a reply, I might ask it via The Scotsman.

Regarding California. I don't know your area too well but I have spent considerable time in both Monterey and Paso Robles. I often wondered how the laid back attitude of many (even in Clint's Carmel!) could produce such a republican stronghold.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Scabby Douglas
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 05:29 AM

Joe :It appears that the electorate in Scotland is far more progressive than in England. That would ensure a progressive state in Scotland - but what would it do to what remains of Great Britain?

Joe, opinions differ.

If, as is relentlessly asserted by commentators opposed to independence, Scotland is a net drain upon the UK, then removing that sinkhole should improve the financial outlook for the remaining United Kingdom (rUK).

If the rUK is obliged by the newly-formed Scottish government to proceed with plans to remove nuclear weapons from the base(s) in Scotland, then there are concerns over the rUK's ability to find suitable alternative locations elsewhere, with the possibility that rUK may have to give up its nuclear capability. (I say "if" because many opponents of independence are convinced that Alex Salmond is bluffing in his assertion that nuclear missiles must go, and think he's using it only as a negotiating counter.)

From another perspective, many commentators argue that the healthy revenue/cashflow from oil in Scottish territorial waters is supporting/bolstering market confidence in the UK's borrowing, and that it could be a serious blow if that were to be lost.

There's an unknown aspect to this - and that's the psychological and political fallout in the rUK. It could reinforce the swing away from traditional political parties to fringe groups like UKIP (think Tea Party, but given to posing in English pubs with pints of beer). It could bring a resurgence in traditional parties - maybe reinvigorating Labour, who at the present seem to be floundering, with no clue how they differ from the Conservatives. Maybe it will make no difference at all.

I could not begin to predict it.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 04:53 AM

In California, we're facing a referendum that has similarities. There's a referendum pending that wants to split California into six separate states. I suspect that two of those states will have Democratic majorities, and the rest will be Republican - instead of having one huge state with an undefeatable Democratic Majority. The area where I live, would become the Sovereign State of Jefferson, and we Democrats would never, ever be able to elect a Democrat as our representative.

It appears that the electorate in Scotland is far more progressive than in England. That would ensure a progressive state in Scotland - but what would it do to what remains of Great Britain?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 04:32 AM

I especially like the bit where he said that Salmond doesn't give a toss about legislation he put through because he is just using the media.

So you reckon he is more aligned to your bigoted stupidity Alex?

You deluded old fool.

Regardless of the question of nationhood, The SNP for all their faults stand for everything you have sneered at and lied about to convince people of your snivelling hatred filled views.

You know, regardless of the outcome, you are the one who will be most disappointed.

And that's kind of funny. If you can make jokes out of sick views that is.

I can. One of my faults.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: selby
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 03:35 AM

Controversial possibly, but has it crossed anyone's mind that the plan might be to ditch Scotland for a stronger economy. Just a thought!!!!
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 03:13 AM

Forget your pension Teribus, a glittering career in "New UK" politics beckons! :0)

Just to set you on the right track, the "sort of" elected government ARE the Tories in concert with the assorted weasels and arse lickers who call themselves Liberals.

But as you obviously know, in UK politics there IS no opposition.

Sorry about the language BTW, but I do get angry occasionally.

Every media outlet has opposed Independence overtly and covertly, yet Mr Salmond has motivated and marshalled his supporters, bringing a huge voting deficit to parity, just as he did the last time you and I crossed swords on the issue of SNP gaining a majority in the Scottish parliament.

Even you must agree that the SNP have done a good job in government ...even with their hands tied by Westminster.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:59 AM

It seems to this writer that, with the intervention of 'Smiler' Brown, the issue has taken a rather sinister turn and moved beyond the question of independence for Scotland to a deconstruction of the Union and a federal reconstruction, without consulting anyone in England, Wales or NI. He's probably got a very good point...

What's Going On?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 14 - 02:46 AM

Musket - Date: 09 Sep 14 - 01:35 PM

Absolutely, perfectly, 100% correct

Apart from which Akenaton:

1: "Cameron, Milliband and the Liberal wally, are coming to Scotland tomorrow as a team to fight Alex Salmond.

As a fucking team!!!"

They are not coming to Scotland to fight Alex Salmond - they are coming to Scotland to argue the case for retaining the Union as it would be in Scotland and the rest of the UK's best interest to do that irrespective of what brand of political party is in power - That by the way Akenaton is what the fucking team bit is about.


2: "Millibands job is to fight the Tories not the Scots."

Ehmmmm NO Akenaton, as the appointed Right Honourable Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, Milliband's job is to oppose the elected Government.